I’d like to like Mitt. He has this wonderful CV and he has been a real entrepreneur. Fabulously
successful. Worked hard on his family and marriage.
But there is something about him that gives me the willies. John did a great analysis and I too watch all Mitt’s efforts, still at 9.1 % not matter what.
I wish he’d stop coloring his hair.It is a certain foppery that drives me nuts. You are fifty yrs old,man let it go gray.It is ok and you’ve earned it.
Be likethe rest of us.
Like John said, he needs to drop the shields, talk TO us and level with us. Not over us and not down to us like Al-gore and Hill. We are not idiots.
Talk about your time in Mass as gov. All the things you learned and what you’d do better.You ran a STATE for goodness sake.You companies too. You know a lot.
Go for broke,Mitt.
Mitt avoided service in Viet Nam by getting a deferment so he could preach in France. None of his five sons have enlisted in the military during a time of war. Now all of a sudden Mitt wants to be Commander in Chief of a military which none of his family ever had a stake in.
Elites avoid military service while middle and lower class men and women still follow the call of duty. This bothers me greatly.
I am scared enough by the current administration that I would not put anything past it. War with Iran is casually discussed by Cheney. This past week, Israel bombed Syria with the apparent approval of our President.
I cannot be thankful enough that Israel bombed Syria. I am not sure what your problem is with this, but I do know that between Syria and Iran, we have a problem. You, and your liberal friends, can hide you head in the sand all day long. It doesn’t make the problem go away.
Sheryl - 22 September 2007 08:31 PM
It could be a women thing but Mitt “polls†very well with Republican women I know. Not one word about plastic or slick came up, just drop dead gorgeous and handsome.
While it might be an asset to have good looks (and I don’t think that Mitt is drop dead gorgeous), he still hasn’t given me anything to help me understand what he is all about. Also, the thing about his sons never serving their country really bothers me.
Enjoy your group! It is nice to know that there are actually conservative womens groups out there in CA!! ;-P
Great thread. Only a few are still stuck on stupid, i.e., the Mormon haters.
Romney told the truth about the GOP. Imagine that, a candidate telling the truth. He said what needed to be said! Yes, this has distanced him from Karl Rove, the Big Tent and the “new tone” of the neo-cons. Maybe Mitt can see that the neo-cons have fragmented the party, used social conservatives then shunned them, at the same time moving to the left on many issues.
Romney has a very cohesive vision for this nation, from what I’ve seen. He is determined to cut the fat from the bureaucracy; that is very appealing. And, he calls the WOT the “War on Jihad.” I haven’t heard that from any other candidate. He gets it.
As for his bedside manner, we’ve been conditioned by the current President to expect that the prez is accessible to each of us personally, that he “cares” about you and me. Well, that is just a personality trait, not a requirement as far as I’m concerned. Mitt’s brilliance and astuteness fill that gap very well for me. We need a leader, not a best friend.
Yes, I’m a Republican woman and yes, Mitt is a hottie. But that observation is followed closely by seeing what a bright, attractive woman his wife Anne is and how solid their marriage is. She, in fact, figures quite significantly in his decision-making.
In sum, we are still getting acquainted with Mitt Romney as he is working hard to make himself known.
I can well understand why you conclude that I am anti-Mormon but you are wrong. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was speculating about why Romney is not more popular as I think he is easily the best candidate and clearly has more positives and fewer negatives than any other candidate. You overlook the fact that I support Romney so his religion is obviously not a bar to my support.
I was not intending to offer a reasoned opinion of the similarities and differences between Islam and Mormonism.
What I know about the Church of Mormon could be printed on the head of a pin-in block letters. I abjectly apologize to any Mormons I offended if they think I was comparing their religion to Islam.
Having taken one foot out of my mouth let me put the other one in. I know a great deal about Islam and I have no hesitation in saying I am an Islamophobe. I fear Sharia law. It is backward and inhumane and has no place in a civilized society. I recognize that a lot of Muslims lead pious lives but they seem to do so because they ignore the difficult passages in the Koran.
Thanks for the clarification. It is refreshing to see somebody attempt to revise and extend their remarks in a way that doesn’t harden and extend a perceived attack against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, let me clarify something: it isn’t the “Church of Mormon,” since Mormon, an ancient Nephite Prophet-Historian, is not the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon was the ancient prophet-historian who abridged many previous records into one focused on testifying of Jesus Christ and teaching the fulness of his gospel a few hundred years A.D.), and neither is Joseph Smith, Jr. (he is the Prophet of the Restoration in these latter days). The head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, as one can logically infer by the name, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Now as far as so-called “Islamophobia” is concerned, don’t confuse the reasonable fear of Islamofascism with an actual phobia, which is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational in having issues with a religious/political ideology that advocates forcing the world to convert at the point of a sword. In fact, such ideologies are offensive to God, for they effectively rob us of our free agency. And we are here on earth to prove ourselves to God, to prove that we are willing to do his will, even when we all have to act on faith instead of sure knowledge.
Now as far as supporting Willard Mitt Romney is concerned, he only makes sense, from an executive perspective. He is arguably one of the most effective executives, in a myriad of contexts, in America. From Bain Capital, to the once-corrupt 2002 Winter Olympic Games, which he saved from corruption, dishonor, and financial ruin, to his Governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, Mitt Romney has proven he knows how to cut waste, restore financial solvency, and restructure and reorganize organizations to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and strength. From private, to a non-governmental public/private partnership, to the public sector, Mitt Romney ends corruption, cuts waste, and does what is best for investors.
And no public institution in America seems to need overhaul, restructuring, and the rooting out of corruption than our Federal government.
Mitt Romney’s family values are also a fresh breath of a wonderful example for America to follow...while Rudy Guiliani is basically John McCain (referring to stance on illegal immigration & amnesty) in drag, with yet another wife, and no experience higher than a mayor. Mayor of a large city, to be sure, but still just a mayor.
Always room for Mormons to defend their brothers, but for those who are unfamiliar with them and those who disdain false prophets:
*****redacted anti-mormon hatesite*****
That’s kinda like posting a link to moveon.org, democraticunderground.org, or dailyKOS “for those who are unfamiliary with conservatives and those who disdain BusHitler:” Please, don’t be so disingenious, Rocketman.
Rocketman ~(Ä)~ - 23 September 2007 08:53 AM
BTW ...
That nonsense about Mormons and their charitable largesse - that only includes helping other Mormons. Unlike St. Vincent De Paul, Catholic Social Services, The Salvation Army, etc., if you aint Mormon, Mormons aint helpin’ you!
Another vile falsehood; Rocketman, your words are beginning to make it appear that you harbor ill will towards Latter-day Saints [http://www.lds.org ]http://www.mormon.org]. LDS charitable donations have helped everybody from the 26DEC Tsunami victims, to Katrina victims, to various earthquake, flood, typhoon/hurricane/tornado/mudslide victims worldwide, and such efforts have grown exponentially each decade since WWII. A very small percentage of that aid has actually benefitted baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So please stop with the anti-Mormon propaganda. You’re doing nobody any favors especially yourself.
I’ll respond to everything else after church. I just had to respond to the falsehoods perpetrated by Rocketman before I left. They are not only untrue, but they expose a curious ignorance of Latter-day Saints.
better late than Posted:
Mitt is great and I would vote for him if I thought that he could beat Hillary. But if one looks at the numbers, it seems that for a Republican to win, he has to pull in a significant number of Independent and or Democrat voters.
Ya, lets compromise our principles and vote for Rudy because only he can beat Hillary. Rudy will take away our guns, grant amnesty to illegals, expand federal funding for abortions and promote gay marriage, but only he can beat “Her”. Who’s her? Hillary who will take away our guns, grant amnesty to illegals, expand federal funding of abortions and promote gay marriage.
Rudy is right on in regards to fighting terrorism and other issue’s but because he is up against Stalinist Hillary, I am suppose to compromise my principles? And for what, because the lying MSN, whose intellectual dishonesty has perpetuated this ever expansive failed federal government, is telling us she can’t be beat? I don’t buy it for a minute, I say bring it on, I’ll take my chances and vote for massive change.
I’ve heard Romney on TV and Radio quite a bit. There is another issue that I think may be affecting his national appeal. Many conservatives find it hard to believe that Romney really is conservative considering he’s the governor of one of the bluest states around. He’s the governor of a state that consistently elected Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the senate. So the question for me is “Is he a conservative who pretended otherwise to get elected in MA or is he a liberal who is pretending to be a conservative to appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party?”
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Campaign 2008: Who’s “On Plan?”
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:28 AM
Yesterday Powerline’s John Hinderaker asked “[W]hy hasn’t Romney done better, given his deep resources, obvious talents, and policy positions that line up well with the party’s base?” John went on to speculate that “I think we may be finding out that [Romney] lacks some of the skills necessary to be an excellent candidate.”
John did note Romney’s leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, which is to me the complete answer to John’s question --Romney is doing “better” because his plan is rolling out as he had hoped: Romney is betting the campaign on the idea that demonstrated success in consecutive actual votes as opposed to polling will catapult him past Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. (Senator McCain is simply not a factor except as a spoiler, probably for Rudy more than anyone else since Senator McCain’s primary appeal is his absolute firmness on pursuing victory in the war.)
So Romney’s entire strategy depends upon the early contests. Mayor Giuliani’s strategy depends upon surviving weak showings where campaigns have actually been run and concluded and winning in the big states beginning in Florida, but especially New York and California where his general reputation currently overwhelms the campaign efforts of Governor Romney and the star power of Senator Thompson.
The key measures of the effectiveness of the candidates how they are doing in their central challenges: Is Romney establishing the leads he needs in the early contests, and are eith Giuliani or Thompson holding on to their leads in the big, later states. John frets that Romney doesn’t seem to be doing well in the national polls when he isn’t focusing on the national polls. The key question ought to be is Giuliani or Thompson holding on to or building upon their leads in the big states?
Romney has in fact built the leads in the early states that he needs, and will spend the next three months defending them. He’s doing exactly what he set out to do.
But the latest numbers out of California suggest trouble for the Giuliani/Thompson strategy. Here’s the AP report of the latest PPI California poll. Key graph:
The poll shows Republican voters to be more divided. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, is slightly ahead of the GOP pack, with 22 percent of likely primary voters saying they will support him.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at 16 percent, as is former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who only recently joined the race. Arizona Sen. John McCain is at 15 percent. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Democrats allow independents to vote in their primary, although Republicans do not. The survey results reflect the views of 455 registered Democrats and independents likely to cast ballots in the Democratic primary and 353 registered Republicans likely to vote in their party’s primary. Both contests will be held Feb. 5.
PPIC is a nonpartisan think tank based in San Francisco. The poll results were based on a telephone survey of 2,003 California adult residents who were interviewed from Sept. 4 to Sept. 11.
Though the sample size is relatively small, it does represent likely voters, and the numbers show Rudy falling, Mitt rising and Fred failing to explode. (And today’s front page Los Angeles Times hit on Rudy on immigration isn’t going to help the mayor either, though GOPers hardly read much less trust the Times.) Again, the Giuliani and Thompson strategies are built on the idea of their general popularity surviving Romney’s run in January or February. These numbers suggest that in the country’s biggest state, the Giuliani and Thompson numbers are falling and Romney’s rising --in the absence of an actual campaign presence by any of the candidates. This wasn’t supposed to have happened. The Fredheads expected their guy to have matched Rudy (or even beat him) in a place like MSM-dependent, Leno-watching California. The sinking feeling among them is that Fred’s moment did in fact pass months ago, and the flavor of the month in May doesn’t sell in the fall or winter.
So, back to John: What do these California numbers tell you? To me they signal that a currently wide open race will indeed pivot on Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, and that Teams Giuliani and Thompson cannot afford to lose all three. It isn’t the Romney campaign that needs to be second-guessing how their efforts are working --they are on plan.
The numbers also tell m --again-- that the national polls are useless in analyzing how the race will break, and the California poll is an early warning sign of just that fact to pundits and candidates alike. Analysts pointing to national polls are like ESPN commentators talking up Michigan in the preseason college football
kbbejlmommy Posted:
So the question for me is “Is he a conservative who pretended otherwise to get elected in MA or is he a liberal who is pretending to be a conservative to appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party.
Or is he a common sense Conservative that was able to garner enough common sense voters, even in the bluest of blue states?
The above posts have raised many good, and perhaps even excellent, points. It’s all wrong, but they’re good points anyway.
What’s the reason—the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t currently give a hoot about the 2008 election and Romney is a national nobody. McCain, Giuliani and Thompson have some name recognition so if you ask Joe Six Pack who he’s voting for he’ll pick on of the known 3. All of the talk about likeability, personal connection, etc is crap if nobody knows who you are and the vast majority of nobodies just don’t care. Don’t confuse your knowledge as political junkies with that of average Americans who are watching the baseball season wind-down and the football season wind-up.
And, contrary to what the Romney campaign may think, they’re not going to get that national recognition by focusing on the Iowa State Fair. Most people likely care less about Iowa than they do the 2008 election. Ask yourself a question as well… how many people actually watch the “debates” and the Sunday political shows? My guess is less than 2% of all potential voters.
sorry if this is too tangential to the theme of this thread, but the questions about Romney’s lack of military service, and his sons’, make me wonder: Are Mormons underrepresented in the military?
Catholics, I’m quite sure, are overrepresented, compared to their share of the general population.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, have a strong belief against serving in the military, I believe.
I don’t know of other disproportions seen in religious groups and military service.
Based on my own experience and reading, I have a tentative theory that among the several strains of pietistic evangelicalism and fundamentalism and Pentecostalism, there may be an underrepresentation in the military due to the theological teachings of separation from “the world,” with an often-corresponding lack (somewhat) of civic involvement and social responsibility in some areas, including running for office. Part of it is eschatology: if you believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket fairly soon, and that God wants it to, or at least ordained it in a sense, it sort of takes away some of the motivation to make this world, this society, this country, “better,” by, say, military service or holding “secular” (translate “unspiritual,” and worldly) office. “Let the dead bury the dead,” sometimes gets taken to an extent that can appear uncaring for this world and unbelievers.
I’m not condemning all people with all these beliefs; just pointing out what I think is a tendency. I may be wrong. (But I never have been, except once when I thought I made a mistake.)
Is it typical for Mormon men to do their two-year mission instead of military service. I think they got excused from the draft for it, right?
I’m not saying it’s good or bad, or faulting Romney: just a religious curiosity.
Is there any official LDS teaching on this?
Because of the obvious sensitivities in this area, I apologize beforehand if this appears as a “slam,” on the LDS church.
I’m really just asking.
Attempt to be pragmatic and logically think about 2008. Lets assume for now that any Republican can win and eliminate that variable. Lets assume that the Republicans lose the POTUS. Given this, apply a loose Minimax algorithm; meaning, we are now trying to minimize the maximum loss. Here we’re talking a large swing in the House, due to movement in moderate/moderate-conservative districts, as maximum loss.
So, given a POTUS loss, who best helps down ticket candidates in moderate/moderate-conservative districts in the East and Midwest?
Attempt to be pragmatic and logically think about 2008. Lets assume for now that any Republican can win and eliminate that variable. Lets assume that the Republicans lose the POTUS. Given this, apply a loose Minimax algorithm; meaning, we are now trying to minimize the maximum loss. Here we’re talking a large swing in the House, due to movement in moderate/moderate-conservative districts, as maximum loss.
So, given a POTUS loss, who best helps down ticket candidates in moderate/moderate-conservative districts in the East and Midwest?
Selecting a nominee on the assumption that we will lose the POTUS race does not seem pragmatic, because we could end up with a nominee that is strong in certain regions but doomed nationally. Better to go with the candidate most likely to win, I say. Especially when you consider that Hillary is very beatable. She has high negatives, she doesn’t wear well, and I’m pretty sure any of the Republican front runners could beat her handily in debates. These guys are not GWB, they are good debaters.
